Falodi v Health and Care Professions Council

On a professional disciplinary appeal by way of rehearing, the High Court conducts a secondary review of the regulator’s decision. It corrects material errors of fact, law, approach or procedural fairness, while giving appropriate respect to the specialist tribunal’s assessment of evidence and professional standards.

Dishonesty requires proof that the registrant’s conduct was dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest members of the profession and that the registrant realised that it was dishonest. A finding of misconduct does not automatically establish current impairment. Insight, remorse, remediation and the risk of repetition remain material. Serious dishonest misconduct, combined with lack of insight and a high risk of repetition, may justify striking the registrant from the register.

The appellant appealed under article 38 of the Health and Care Professions Order 2001 against a Conduct and Competence Committee decision finding that her fitness to practise as a social worker was impaired by misconduct and imposing a striking-off order.

The Panel found that she had used a false student certificate to obtain a council tax exemption, failed to notify the council of changes affecting her entitlement, failed to disclose property interests, and failed to disclose a close personal relationship when applying for an employer-funded car loan from a company owned by her former partner.

The appeal challenged the factual findings, the dishonesty findings, the assessment of impairment and the proportionality of the sanction.

1. Approach to the appeal. The appeal was a rehearing without hearing the evidence again. The court’s task was a secondary judgment under CPR 52.11 and CPR PD52D.19.1(2). Appropriate weight had to be given to the Panel’s specialist expertise and its opportunity to see and hear the witnesses. The court would correct material errors of fact, law or approach, but would not conduct an exercise in resentencing or substitute one reasonable view of the merits for another.
2. Findings of fact. The Panel was entitled to prefer the evidence of the fraud investigators and reject the appellant’s inconsistent and evasive account. Findings of primary fact, particularly those based on credibility, were virtually unassailable absent a clear error. The evidence supported the finding that the appellant used the false certificate, remained liable for council tax as the tenant, and had failed to notify the council of relevant changes.
3. Dishonesty and misconduct. The applicable test required the Panel to decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether the conduct was dishonest by the standards of reasonable and honest social workers and, if so, whether the appellant realised that it was dishonest. The non-disclosure of the personal relationship with the car dealer constituted deliberate non-disclosure of a potential conflict of interest. The findings of dishonesty and misconduct were lawful and supported by the evidence.
4. Impairment. The Panel correctly considered current impairment separately from the historical misconduct. Dishonesty did not inevitably establish impairment. The Panel was entitled to find no genuine insight or remorse, no remediation, and a high risk of repetition.
5. Sanction and outcome. The Panel considered the sanctions progressively and identified the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. Given the seriousness and duration of the dishonest misconduct, the appellant’s lack of insight and remorse, and the risk of repetition, a lesser sanction would have been inadequate and would have undermined public confidence. The appeal was dismissed.

• Health and Care Professions Council Conduct and Competence Committee: On 1 October 2015, found the appellant’s fitness to practise impaired by misconduct and imposed a striking-off order.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Dismissed the appeal and upheld the Panel’s decision.